E2E "golden path" negative test case + test case: Try to update forbidden fields #4154
E2E "golden path" negative test case + test case: Try to update forbidden fields #4154
Conversation
primarily targeting negative test case to update forbidden fields, but serves as a base for "golden path" negative test case, that runs various simple negative test cases on a single cluster https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ARO-23182
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: mvacula02 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
| modifiedNodePool.Properties.Platform.OSDisk.SizeGiB = to.Ptr[int32](256) | ||
| modifiedNodePool.Properties.Platform.OSDisk.DiskStorageAccountType = to.Ptr(hcpsdk20240610preview.DiskStorageAccountTypePremiumLRS) | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would simplify this a bit:
- creating a new variable
modifiedNodePoollooks as if you copied the value, but this is not happening here, so you can just use the nodePool and modify it (unless you want to compare both, then you need to create new separate modifiedNodePool) - I would catch the cases where
Properties == nilin the same level where you checkerr != nilin a branch above, to avoid nesting, and handled it as a separate case
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This can also be simplified a bit (eg. we can ignore nil values, we don't branch to branch if we don't get error, ...). Also, we may want to make sure that the values we use to set a different value is actually different from the default.
2 participants
ARO-23182
What
Implements test scenario: updating node pool version to a version higher than its clusterBLOCKED: ARO-24542This document discusses test cases that could be added to the "golden path".
Why